"Disaster for the President"

this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.  Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

The person with authority on that stage was Romney

Andrew Sullivan ^

AIPAC Gets Sucked In

Andrew 'Sullying' Sullivan lays it on:

...it has long been Netanyahu's plan - and that of his coalition partners - to permanently coopt the West Bank. This is obviously stupid, but not "bafflingly" so. It's obvious why. Netanyahu and his allies have long wanted Greater Israel. God, they believe, gave all of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people, and they also believe that occupying them permanently is essential to Israeli security. Christianists believe the same and see the process as an unfolding of divine destiny. Why are we supposed to be incapable of recognizing fundamentalism when it stares us in the face? This is the issue - which is why I do not believe for a moment that Israel will voluntarily leave the West Bank in my lifetime.

They're there for ever, if they can manage it. And when your policy is ultimately governed by religious diktat and fathomless paranoia, then there is no reason to wonder why it's self-defeating. It doesn't matter if it's self-defeating. It's your religious and sacred duty to stay put and expand; and psychologically impossible to withdraw.

This, to echo Matt, is obviously more than a tactical error, like Tora Bora. It's a strategic goal. AIPAC is just waiting for president Palin to back an acceleration of settlements and a full-scale war, subsidized by Americans, against Iran.

a. I wish that AIPAC would come on our bandwagon but from up close, no way that will happen.

b. residing in one's homeland isn't stupid. people who suggest that are stupid.

c. God just didn't "give" us this land. we entered a covenant and for 3000 years we've been there. in large and very smaller numbers. as sovereign, as exiles sneaking in during the rules of Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans and others, including the British.

d. no fathomless paranoia. why was the PLO founded in 1964? 1964, three years before there was a supposed "occupation" and "settlements".

Andrew, can you think and not rant?

d. fundamentalism or not, without Judea & Samaria, we have very little security in pre-67 Israel. ask the residents of the Gaza wrap-around region, you know, where the Qassams fall?

Sullivan Carries On Sullying and Soiling

Caught this at Andrew Sullivan's blog:-

Cheney, Palin and Netanyahu want their war back - with torture, pre-emptive attacks and every terrorist attack used to justify more aggression.

Bit odd sentence structure and word order. Not to mention the rationality.

Does Netanyahu use or want to use torture? What war does Israel want? What aggression after disengagement, Lebanon withdrawal, Hebron agreement, etc.?

What a cook is this Sullivan.

Parts of the entire blog:

Netanyahu And Palin?

Peter Beinart makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up:

The Netanyahu government is filled with Americans. The prime minister himself attended high school in the Philadelphia suburbs. Ron Dermer, one of his closest advisors, was born in Miami Beach. His ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, hails from New Jersey. In addition, prominent Americans like Abrams regularly appear in the U.S. media to echo the Netanyahu line. But paradoxically, this familiarity breeds overconfidence and ignorance...
...As an Obama official once told me about the Netanyahu team, with amazement, “these guys are actually waiting for President Palin.”

Of course they are. Then they get their war on against Iran and permanently occupy the West Bank. Remember Palin had one flag in her office beside the US one: Israel's...

Cheney, Palin and Netanyahu want their war back - with torture, pre-emptive attacks and every terrorist attack used to justify more aggression. And if you put the Christianist right back in the White House, this time purged even of the tincture of responsibility Bush inherited from his family, we have a world war on our hands.

That Silly Sullivan Sullies Again

The Atlantic's crypto-antisemite, Andrew Sullivan, is at it again. Here he is, praising a book, pamphlet actually, at his blog (more about that pamphlet here):

Fighting Back Against The Settlers

This gives you hope: a new book in Israel designed to rally a movement to end the illegal settlements on the West bank. The rationale is a familiar one:

“Israel is a democratic, Jewish state. If we remain in the territories we will have to choose: either Jewish or democratic. It won’t work together, because in a democracy the majority rules and soon [Arabs] will be the majority between the Jordan and the sea. If we want to remain a Jewish state, we will have to deny the rights of the majority and we will turn into an apartheid state. If we insist on remaining democrats, an Arab prime minister will soon be elected by a majority of votes.”

But there's the kicker: the book has been withdrawn from bookstores after a campaign from the far right (i.e. those in Israel who share Sarah Palin's and Bill Kristol's view). Along with this confusing but unsettling news, it reflects something that we need to come to terms with.

It is utopian to believe that Israel will ever withdraw from the lands it has occupied on the West Bank.

Andrew, or can I call you Andy by now, that line of argumentation is faulty and even false.


Here's Andrew with his partner, Aaron Tone




Demographics, besides being imprecise, especially as regards Jews and committed Zionists, is working against the theory that Arabs will overrun numerically the Jewish population within the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, not to mention the Arab cheating by inflating numbers.

As for democracy, there are several plausible political arrangements that Arabs can benefit from without endangering Israel's democratic character. Of course, life and security should be the paramount concern.

Utopian? No. Justice. Right. The best solution to a 90 year old violent conflict forced upon the Jews who were awarded the internationally legal recognition of the right to reconstitute their national homeland.

Sullivan Actually Sullies Himself This Time

Go on, have a real hearty laugh at the stupidity of Andrew Sullivan when he writes in The Atlantic:

...Jerusalem was 84 percent Arab in 1946 and well within Palestinian authority under the partition plan the Palestinian Arabs rejected. It is undoubtedly true that Palestinian and wider Arab refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist has been a huge part of this problem - arguably the central reason for this conflict. But it remains true to my mind that the current Israeli government needs an attitude adjustment, and soon.

In case you are wondering why I am laughing and why you should laugh, well,

a) Jerusalem had a Jewish majority since the late19th century;

and

b) Jerusalem was actually slated to become a corpus separatum, a "special international regime'y under the 1947 Partition Plan recommendation, B-III and the territory slated for such an entity was much larger than even today's municipal boundaries - which means that all of the so-called "Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhoods" are not in annexed Jerusalem but are in the area the UN set aside for Jerusalem, albeit under an alternative administrative institution;

and

c) true or not, Israel's "attitude" needs no adjustment. The 'Pals.' need a complete turnabout not only in attitude but deed.

______________

AK asks me to add:


Note that he says Jerusalem was well within "Palestinian" (by which he means Palestinian Arab) authority. Not so. Not only because, as you note, it was to be in a corpus separatum, but because there was no Palestinian Arab entity in the picture then. Dealings were with existing Arab states.

The Sullying Continues

Andrew Sullivan, the not-so-crypto antisemite of The Atlantic, attacks Maureen Dowd on her perception of Israel and the conflict the Arabs have foisted upon us.

Here's an excerpt from his blog piece:-

Nothing illustrates better the total bizarreness of the US-Israel relationship. No one in Washington - apart from a few Likudniks and Palinite end-timers - actually supports more settlements or any settlements i [sic] the West Bank. At the same time, Washington exercizes a UN veto to protect Israel from international law, funnels a vast amount of foreign and military aid to the country, helped finance the pulverization of Gaza last year, provides absurd international cover for Israel's 150 nukes, has worked tirelessly to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capacity, and on and on.

In return? Fuck you, Obama. To which the overwhelming response in Washington is: Obama screwed up.

There is something completely awry here and it has rarely been more evident than in the last twelve months.

Funny that the infamous Baker phrase of "Fuck the Jews" is now applied to the Jews who are being screwed by Obama. Andrew, while you harp on the "settlements" theme, please do not forget that east Jerusalem neighborhoods are also included in the State Department denouncements. And that has mobilized much more than Likudniks (there really are Likudniks in Washington?) and Palinites. Israel has a very strong support group which actually does view the retention of Judea and Samaria as crucial.

And using verbs like "funneling" to describe the aid Israel gets? Nasty imagery there. Do all recipients of foreign aid merit a funnel? Or maybe some of it is quite well deserved?

Israel is most definitely not "protected from international law", Andrew but from an immoral gang of dictatorships who have overtaken the functions of legality in the international community who twist those instruments in a biased and irrational way.

The Obama has "worked tirelessly" on the Iran issue? Oh, please. Are you functionally incapable of employing basic cerebral tools that you know stoop to propagandizing, shilling for your ideological heroes?

This is not punditry. Even a putz could write better.

What Sullivan Doesn't Grasp

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic has been quite ferocious recently on the Israel front.

His latest rant is here where is generously includes a critique of his postion and responds.

I decided to concentrate on this part of his reasoning:-

...I can understand if some draw the line at anything that might risk the actual security of Israel. But freezing construction of settlements on the West Bank? How could that affect Israeli security? Many Israelis believe it is essential to Israel's future security. It is the least Israel could do to help its largest ally and supporter. But even this ... is out of the question and followed up by provocation after provocation.

I'm not a fool. Netanyahu is out to destroy Obama's outreach to the Muslim world. In that battle, I stand with Obama and have every reason to be frustrated with the direction Israel is taking. No more excuses. It's getting pathetic.

Okay, A. = Many Israelis believe

Many pundits like Sullivan believe the polls, usually published in Ha-Ha-Haaretz and other outlets of a very certain political/ideological character, that tend to provide a soft, minimalistic outlook by a supposed majority of Israelis assuming the "peace now" line (that's with a lower 'p' and 'n'). And due to the questions, that usually is the case. But real polls as elections and over the past 43 years almost, the parties that promise security, continued Jewish residency in Judea and Samaria, firm commitment to Jewish history and heritage usually form the governments and those who don't and still form a coalition usually find their coalition collapsing when they assume another policy posture, even those of the Right, i.e., Netanyahu after Wye and Hebron.

And B. = Netanyahu is out to destroy Obama's outreach to the Muslim world

This is stupid and probably a result of judaeophobia. Netanyahu doesn't need to do that. The Muslims are doing that very well and in fact, either Obama and his advisors, or whoever pointed him in that direction (Rashid Khalidi? Edward Said?), seem to have erred in that approach from its very foundation. The Muslim world doesn;t need Netanyahu's assistance. Unfortunately, ever since FDR's boat ride with Ibn Saud, the American Presidency had been both enamored and screwed over repeatedly by the Muslim world (with exceptions, of course) and led by the nose to blame the Jews, or Zionism.

Sullivan has no good answer for why the Pals. haven't come to the negotiating table following the construction moratorium. So, blame the Jews for statements, for provocations, for lack of sensitive timing (see his piece).

Sullivan doesn't grasp this and is sullying himself.

Sullivan Sullies

Andrew Sullivan has an opinion on Jewish residential communities, like the one in which I live:

I can't see any conceivable peace in the region without an end to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and dismantling of the settlements. But it remains quite clear that Israel has absolutely no intention of doing this.

An end?

Andrew, sir, how did it begin?

Did Jewish "settlements" exist in Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967?

Could they have been the cause of the Six Days War?

Could they have been the cause of the fedayeen raids and infiltrations between 1949 and 1956?

Could they have been the reason Arafat set up the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964?

No, I don't think so. They simply didn't exist.

The last Jewish villages in that area were wiped out and ethnically cleansed - by Arabs. Neveh Yaakov, Atarot, Jewish Quarter in Old Jerusalem, Bet HaAravah, Kfar Etzion, Masu'ot Yitzhak, Revadim and Ein Tzurim, to mention a few. So, it couldn't have been "settlements" that caused the war.

And, maybe it was the Israeli "occupation" of the "West Bank"? Of Gaza?

Nope. The "West Bank" was illegally annexed by Jordan in April 1950, thereby, incidentally, screwing the Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" royally, if you'll excuse the pun. And Gaza was ruled by an Egyptian military governship, thus denying those Arabs any independence.

And Israel?

Israel was suffering from Arab terror against its civilians without planting down "settlements" or being an "occupier".

So, Sully, why is there no peace?

Why did the Arabs riot, pogrom, kill, rampage and rape in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939?

Why did they reject the 1947 UN Partition Decision?

Could it be that no Jew anywhere was to be tolerated?

Could it be that no peace is possible?

Could it be that dismantling the Jewish communities is no solution to the real problem the Arabs have we Jews seeking their rights to reconstitute their National Home? That your solution does not match the problem?

Mr. Sullivan, I'd like to hear from you, if only because I and my family are directly in the line of fire, living as I do in Shiloh.

Spin-off on "Amalek"

What's better, reading a former lefty-leaning (Jeffrey Goldberg) defend Bibi or realizing that current lefties (Andrew Sullivan) are dumb?

Check this out.

Andrew Sullivan's Good Guess

Andrew Sullivan writes:

I'm guessing those West Bank settlements - where he lives - are not going anywhere any time soon.

See, it isn't too difficult to be perceptive.

The New Republic Gets Hot

Dov Bear pointed me here, where I read what Leon Wieseltier wrote:-

Andrew Sullivan rushed to the defense of his idol, I mean Obama. When one types all the time, sooner or later everything will be typed, and so Sullivan, in his fury against Kristol, typed this: "A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his faith." Ponder that early adjective. It is Jew baiting. I was not aware that only Christians can judge Christians, or that there are things about which a Jew cannot call a Christian a liar. If Kristol is wrong about Obama, it is not because Kristol is a Jew. So this fills me with a certain paschal wrath.

Sullivan responded:

My phrase "a non-Christian manipulator of Christianity" is an attack on Kristol's cynicism, not his Jewishness. I agree wholeheartedly with Wieseltier that, "if Kristol is wrong about Obama, it is not because Kristol is a Jew." It is because he is a cynic about faith, and a ruthless partisan indifferent to the truth when it cannot be harnessed to the wielding of power. My post was a protest against the manipulation of faith for partisan purposes. It would apply to anyone outside a faith who has decided to use and manipulate another's faith for his own political purposes. "Non-Christian" would include atheist or Muslim or agnostic or, of course, Jewish. It would apply to a Catholic calling a professing Muslim a fraud or a practising Protestant a liar.

And Wieseltier capitually rebutted:

I still do not see why a Catholic cannot call a Muslim a fraud or a Jew call a Protestant a liar or an agnostic call a believer a cynic, or why one's identity should have any bearing upon the truth or falsity of anything one says, or why the Christianization of Republican politics should not be attributed directly to Christians, but about one thing I wish to be piercingly clear: I do not believe that Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Semite...Of course he is not an anti-Semite. I should have said so before I pounced.